Here's the thing about the Apple Watch — it isn't really a watch

There's a raging debate about whether it will revolutionize the
smartwatch category or be a humiliating flop that destroys the
shared destiny of Apple CEO Tim Cook and design majordomo Jony
Ive.

A lot of chatter around the Apple Watch has a decidedly confused
quality to it. If people don't much wear watches anymore (They
have iPhones to tell time!), why would they want to buy one that
starts at $350?

If you want a timekeeping device for your wrist, you can get one
for $10 that tells time flawlessly and doesn't need to be
recharged every night.

What does Apple expect folks to do with the watch — invent new
modes of communication? Streamline their ability to pay for
stuff?

Wear it like a fashionable high-end watch?

It only looks like a watch ...

Having paid attention to watches for a long, long time and, a few
years back, predicted that wearables were going to be the next
hot thing in tech, I can say that much of the confusion about the
watch has to do with how it looks.

By that, I mean: Apple is calling it a "watch." You wear it on
your wrist, and Ive and Apple's design team have worked hard to
make it look like a nice watch, including the brilliant touch of
retaining the traditional horological crown as an input
feature.

But the Apple Watch is not just a watch. If you consider all the other stuff the
watch can do or will be able to do, the Apple Watch will
essentially be a tiny iPhone strapped to your arm. It could do
for wearable computers what the iPhone did for desktops and
laptops and cameras and cell phones — rendered them all optional.
(For a brief period a few years back, I was between laptops and
reverted to using a very old model which couldn't browse the Web
effectively, but I had an iPhone and experienced no real
problems.)

So the critical question: With
the Apple Watch, are we really dealing with a
watch? Or a new
genre of device that only shares with traditional watches a piece
of real estate on the human body?

Obviously, it's not a watch. It's a small wearable computer that,
for the moment, requires a slightly larger yet still very
portable pocket computer — the iPhone — to work. Watches are only
good for one thing, basically: telling time. Some have various
other functions related to time built in, but
they're called "timepieces" for a reason.

I use my watches to tell time time and, occasionally, to time
things. Otherwise, I just enjoy looking at them.

The magic, mutable Apple watchface

The only thing that interests me about the Apple Watch as a watch
is the ability to change the watch face. It could look like a
Cartier Santos ...

Screenshot via
Cartier

... or a Rolex Sub ...

Screenshot via
Rloex

... or a Panerai Luminor ...

Screenshot via Panerai

... or a digital watch ...

Screenshot via
Timex

... or something wilder and more exotic ...

Screenshot via Devon
Watches

Cool!

The Apple Watch also benefits from a trend in watches of
late: bigness. It's a large timepiece (although not, reportedly,
enormous). A few decades ago, no one would have wanted to wear
anything so chunky on their wrist — even the legendary Rolex
Submariner, originally a diver's watch with a large form factor
for its day, looks dinky compared with the slabs of
micro-engineering that some people are strapping to their wrists
these days.

The very thin Patek
Philippe Calatrava.Screenshot via
Patek Philippe

The whole point of fine Swiss horology was to strive for
thinness. For example, the Patek Philippe Calatrava, an automatic
wristwatch that packs all its ingenious mechanical technology
into mere 7-millimeter-thick case, like the example to the
right.

Aesthetically, the Apple Watch fits in with the current
style of wrist wear.

Leaving the world of watches behind

The only precedent I can think of for the Apple Watch is the
modern dive watch, which is actually a dive computer. For
decades, divers needed reliable watches that could survive the
rigors of the deep. This is why the Rolex Sub is so iconic — it
was the dive watch by which others were judged.

But nobody goes scuba diving with a Rolex Sub these days. They
use one of these:

It costs $1,800. Which is a relative bargain, compared to the
Rolex, which goes for about $8,000 — and was pricey even during
its more utilitarian heyday.

However, the dive computer does SO MUCH MORE than a Swiss
automatic dive watch that it isn't even funny. That's why it's
called a "computer."

And therein lies the tricky issue with the Apple Watch. Apple
seems to be trying to please two constituencies with the device:
those who wear or would wear a watch; and those who desire a
wrist computer. Screenshot via Mares

Logical, given that the existing smartwatches haven't really
taken off as a new tech category. They just don't much appeal to
the watch set, which sees them as glorified Timex Ironman
digitials. So naturally Apple decided to "conquest" these people,
in the lingo of marketing. So the Apple Watch is exceptionally
watch-like, as smartwatches go.

Apple wants watch folks to wear the watch every day, too,
something that watch folks don't always do. Watch folks like to
wear different watches. I would be depressed if
I had to wear the same watch every day.

So to be a success, the Apple Watch has to be something that
completely transcends all our preconceived notions about a gadget
you wear on your wrist. Just as the iPhone completely redefined
what a "phone" could be.

That's a lot to take on. Because I can go out right now and buy a
great $350 traditional watch that will last practically forever,
look good, and tell time.

For my perspective, there isn't much to be gained for Apple to
compete with that. So it must have a much more all-consuming and
ultimately indispensable future in mind for its much-awaited new
gadget.